Snider, as Adm'r, etc. v. Morgan, as Ex'x, etc., [Ms. 1101535, Nov. 30, 2012] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. 2012). In reversing
a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P., the Court applies
the standard that "dismissal is proper only when it appears beyond
doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim
that would entitle the plaintiff to relief." In
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1936 (2009), the Supreme Court of the United States adopted
a more restrictive standard for reviewing motions to dismiss, but the
Supreme Court of Alabama has continued to apply the standard quoted above.
The particular issue here was whether a suit on a mortgage executed twenty-three
years before the suit was filed was barred by the twenty-year period of
repose. The complaint alleged that the defendant has breached the mortgage
by failure to pay. It did not allege a date when this breach occurred.
Even though the complaint sought "repayment of the entire 'indebtedness
reflected by the Mortgage,'" the Court, construing the complaint
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, held that in the absence
of an allegation as to when the note was breached by non-payment, it remains
possible that the plaintiff could prove a breach within the twenty-year
period of repose, i.e., less than twenty years before the filing of the
suit. The Court also reverses dismissal of other claims alleging breach
of the duties under a durable power of attorney and unjust enrichment.